The thesis is discussed through three main topics. The extreme violence in these cases is often explicable in terms of the tendency of identification (religious or not) to exclude and discriminate against others; the violent content of some religious texts; or the struggle for power, supremacy, or autonomy among competing religious groups--in addition to human motivations and desires (for example, revenge) that are intelligible independently of anything to do with religion. Not even close. He reinterpreted the Bhagavadgita so that Arjuna became the model for a satyagraha warrior a detached soldier who could be male or female prepared to struggle or even die while using non-violence and compassion in a search for truth or God the terms became the same. Wake up to the day's most important news. Certainly a lot of the 20th Centurys Death by Government can be linked to Communism. Niebuhr insisted that states operated by coercion, that the exercise of power was a continuum and that there was no essential distinction between using coercion within and outside of a state. A second form of peace is obtained by defense. They inculcate ethical norms of, compassion, honesty, charity, and social justice. Although in recent years there has been a lot of finger pointing at Islamic extremists, Christians cant dodge the blame either. Consider that I didn't claim religion was a, @ GwenKillerby, you made a rather gratuitous assertion that "religion" was used to justify the American Revolutionary War and the American Civil War. 1 . I will also show that many religiously based justifications for violence are as acceptable as rigorous secular justifications for violence, provided that crucial premises, which religion supplies, are accepted. p132: It would be entirely incorrect, even frivolous, to suggest that the filoque clause is one of the factors that influenced the war between the Serbs and the Croats in the 1990s. The most prominent of these religious theories are non-violence, principled disobedience irregardless of consequences, nuclear war pacifism, just war pacifism, and programmatic pacifism. The irony for students of religion in thinking about this positive development is that the old warring Europe was a far more Christian place than the new peaceful Europe where secularism, as defined as the declining influence of religion in all areas of life, is rampant. Yet the outcry over Abu Ghraib shows that there is widespread resistance to using torture even against alleged terrorists. (1) Bacevich relates America's new thirst for militarism to the rise of militant evangelicalism's post Vietnam love affair with Israel, reinterpretation of just war of contemporary life. While, for example, it is estimated that approximately one to three million people were tragically killed in the Crusades, and perhaps 3,000 in the Inquisition, nearly 35 million soldiers and civilians died in the senseless, and secular, slaughter of World War 1 alone. They assume that the process of creating a more just society can be done without violence, even when privileged groups lose influence. So it may be that not peace, but war needs to be seen as the abnormality and explained. The liberal church lobbies working in Washington have been described as not knowing that peace and justice are two words. Which brings us to the heart of the problem which is the problem of the human heart. He raged at the capture of the holy places and the treatment given to Christians, and ordered a war to restore Christianity. But facts like these do not mean that religion has no special, distinctively religious role in explaining episodes of violence. We have declared war on terrorism, but in Afghanistan treated both the Taliban and foreign fighters as not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention and recently seems to have treated some Iraqis the same way. If my Radio 5 Live caller really cares about making the world a more peaceful place, its not religion that needs eliminating, but the problems of the human heart. In fact, jihad was rarely invoked in civil wars and even in wars against the Christian Byzantines and the crusaders. All these theories arise from the same basic insight famously described by Plato and Aristotle: war is not for the sake of war; it is fought for the sake of peace. I challenge you to prove that assertion, otherwise, your assertion is nothing other than your own personal opinion. It was carried out in response to the recent killings in France. The struggle for Indias independence and self-sufficiency began with a careful political analysis before each campaign but became a religious quest in which the welfare of both sides became paramount and a tainted or violent means could not result in a pure end. In his research on Christian churches and genocide in that country, Timothy Longman notes the extensive criticism faced by that countrys Christian churches, not only for failing to oppose the genocide, but for complicity in the violence. I mean, while the actual reason for the conflict may not have been religious, religion may have been used to popularise and/or justify the war. Roman Catholic and Protestant missionary work has for years sought better living conditions through education and health care, and major denominations have lobbies in Washington. Clearly there are those who have committed horrendous acts based on religious zeal, and we must be alert to these threats and respond forcefully. While religions have often fallen well short of this utopian vision, we must recognize that greed, unbalanced power, and causeless hatred - not religion - are the causes of most wars, and eliminating these should be our focus. It's estimated that over 160 million civilians were killed in genocides in the 20th century alone, with nearly 100 million killed by the Communist states of USSR and China. Liberation Theology in Latin America, building upon traditional Catholic social thought, insisted that structural violence could be so pervasive that the essential conditions for a just society could not be fulfilled. @user151841 - the silk road never went through the holy land. An individual pacifist can accept death as a result of passive resistance against evil, but states do not and should not commit suicide. If the people approve of a war, so will religious institutions that are directly dependent upon them. A few leaders, often far away from local congregations, do make bold pronouncements, but these are easily ignored under the sentiment that what do religious leaders know about international politics. Eventually the Pandavas are restored to the throne through means allowed by Krishna that violate the just practices of war and contribute to their own downfall. What we mean by peace is often unclear. Thus far our discussion should show that we cannot expect religions to jettison either their founding documents on war or their long history of attempting to limit the cause and conduct of war. Report this resourceto let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Marx saw religion as a tool of the ruling class, a way to persuade peoples to accept their impoverished lot by promising pie in the sky, bye and bye. The use of military force is not to convert a person (this submission must be voluntary) but to create a government of Muslims that will rule in accordance with. No matter how often we may emphasize the teachings about the value of peace in early traditions and canonical documents, the potential for making war a religious duty will always be there. Native americans also don't have a war like religion. In Amos, war results from Gods punishment because of the failure of justice within the kingdom. Theirs was a way of perfection reserved for the most devout. Do historians agree that wars break out because of miscalculations? The Islamic Conquests and Christian Crusades were still just a disguise for an (attempted) land grab. Mark Juergensmeyer & Margo Kitts & Michael K. Jerryson: "Violence and the Worlds Religious Traditions. While religious groups have been specifically targeted (most notably in World War II), to claim that religion was the cause is to blame the victim and to misunderstand the perpetrators' motives, which were nationalistic and ethnic, not religious. Can a source be considered 'primary' if it is not written by an eyewitness and partly based on another source? As he envisioned a future where the world is perfected by the conscious acts of human beings, the ancient Hebrew prophet Isaiah wrote, "They shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." My prayer is that, far from contributing to the rather erroneous view that religion causes all wars, Christians would witness to the world that Christ our saviour has broken every wall. But is this assumption correct? In fact, they are almost one. Questions historians ask that non-historian enthusiasts don't? The great series of western holy wars were the Crusades, which lasted from 1095 until 1291 CE. Lieut-Colonel Ian Hutson is the Divisional Commander of the Central Division in New Zealand. Age of Dynasties (1400-1559): conflicts over, Age of Reason (1648-1789): religion vanished as a cause of war, to be replaced by conflicts over, Age of Nationalism (1789-1917): wars became increasingly linked to. British, Russian and American imperialism, oil and forced secularisation have all exacted a terrible price on the people of the Middle East. Augustine at the time of the Vandal siege of Carthage, counseled a Roman commander who desired to enter a monastery to first fulfill his duty as a soldier. As Jesus said, it is from within, out of a persons heart, that evil thoughts comesexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. Age of Nationalism (1789-1917): wars became increasingly linked to identity and national independence - territories were a common cause of war in colonial empires, Latin America as well as the Far East. You might think therefore that with the rise of Al-Qaeda and Isis since 2004, the proportion of conflicts having religion as their main cause is on the rise. In additional to Geneva Conventions and the U.N., there is just war theory in the formative documents of Hinduism and Islam. There were differences among them on when war was allowed. Several studies did just that. The child did not back down. Often building upon realism is a belief in a balance of power. This kind of religiously-motivated outbreak of peace has often been overlooked. Is there an extra virgin olive brand produced in Spain, called "Clorlina"? Equally important, the personal of all organized religions are drawn from the society they serve and will share most of its values, both the good and bad ones. For example, neither Hitler, Mussolini, nor Saddam Hussein hesitated to start wars in spite of the opposition of religious leaders to their rule. But if it isnt religion that causes war, what does? Peace means a well-ordered society, and it is legitimate to defend that well-ordered society. Children gunned down, innocent civilians killed by bombs or bullets, and hostages executed publically when demands arent met. Today religious diversity is so pronounced that creating an empire utilizing an existing or new religion will fail. Some commentators claim that religion as a reason for war has decreased due to the increasing secularization of Western society. So I went to the YMCA and made one out of wood that sufficed when I could not borrow the neighbor boys guns. Augustine had insisted that one did not fight for oneself but could for a neighbor. As Protestantism began to spread in Europe, tension arose between Catholics and Protestants. They legitimate the political order by preaching against anarchy and accept the present boundaries of the state. Soldiers were and are to be the target of other soldiers, not those who do not carry weapons. An essentially peaceful religion can become more violent and aggressive in its thinking when it is imbedded in a people who live in a climate of fear, violence and humiliation. None of the great empires had lasting success, and what they did to subject peoples could as easily be labeled as oppression rather than peace. However, one should not rule out independent origins. What does he say about claims that religion is wholly or mainly responsible for war and other violence? This is made possible by a custom made god that institutionalizes racism, makes land grant, and gives a religious mandate to spread the truth of 'love', 'peace', 'hope', 'chosen' and 'faith' to anyone lacking in 'love', 'peace', 'hope', 'chosen' and 'faith'. Instead, they advocated a secular method for bringing secular results creating a win/win situation as a way of managing rather than solving conflicts. In his hilarious analysis of The 10 Commandments, George Carlin said to loud applause, "More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason," and many take this idea as an historical fact. This portion of the ethics of war was not dictated by military needs of soldiers, but by religious and moral insight. In the Sunni tradition, there is a strong presumption of loyalty to the caliph and then sultans, but authority for interpreting the religious traditions after Muhammads death belonged not to the political leader but to the community of scholars. There realpolitik rules and the ministers should confine themselves to individual or local moral issues. Medieval and Renaissance wars were also typically about control and wealth as city-states vied for power, often with the support, but rarely instigation, of the Church. Do axioms of the physical and mental need to be consistent? 1 Definitions 2 Applicability of religion to war 3 Prevalence 4 Holy war concepts in religious traditions Toggle Holy war concepts in religious traditions subsection 4.1 Ancient warfare and polytheism 4.2 Christianity 4.3 Hinduism 4.4 Islam 4.5 Judaism 4.6 Shinto 4.7 Sikhism 5 Antiquity 6 Middle Ages Toggle Middle Ages subsection This still works today, given how many use Christianity as a motivation to be a conservative. The Quaker Peace Testimony after 1660 in England but not in colonial America also rested upon no direct involvement in political events. Despite all kinds of efforts they couldnt seem to do anything to get acceptance as New Zealanders, and experienced rejection and some violence instead. @Scrontch that is a hopelessly naive view, I would say that almost all of the worst genocides in the existence of this world has happened in the 20th century. When leaders arent being totally naked about those things, they dress them up with national pride or religion, but ultimately they are not at the root. Certainly the U.S. in the post cold war has shown a limited ability to impose peace either by cultural or military might. Those within the realm of faith (the dar es islam) are in perpetual conflict with those outside (the dar el harb), though the Prophet allowed truces of up to ten years. Neither is all coercion the same, and killing in war is qualitatively different from other exercises of power. Part of HuffPost Religion. In reality, people groups, states and empires resorted to war for multiple reasons, including economic and social concerns. The most influential part of the Mahabharata is a long section termed the Bhagavadgita occurring just before the climatic battle scene. Between the 11th and 13th century, the Crusades occurred in Europe. For the most part, religious wars, Indeed; in fact I'd be surprised if we could find. With what seems like disturbing regularity, the media reports horrendous acts of violence. The world today is a better place for the activities of the NGOs, but recent history does not prove that it is becoming a more peaceful place, if the quantity of wars and numbers of deaths are the criteria. One can use a theological definition (a deity or a set of beliefs) or a functional (providing solace, establishing boundaries, ultimate value, normative behavior patterns), or a structural (churches, priests, sacred writings). socio-political divisions are justified and enforced on religious lines. Note that I did not say cause because causation requires a higher level of proof. Pacifists have grappled with the issues of genocide, failed states, and terrorism and the value of international peace- keepers, armed or unarmed. Formerly, in most of the world, the state supported the clergy; in America, the clergy need the laity. Pride, will to power, a desire to play God, identifying our society with God, or our welfare with the common good meant that even the highest cultural achievements of humanity were flawed. Still, there can be religious wars. assassinations of political leaders for betraying the true faith has characterized Christianity and Islam. He says church personnel and institutions were actively involved in the programme of resistance to popular pressures for political reform that culminated in the 1994 genocide, and numerous priests, pastors, nuns, brothers, catechists, and Catholic and Protestant lay leaders supported, participated in, or helped to organize the killings. Given that both Catholic and Protestant churches in Rwanda were multi-ethnic, this means that in most communities members of a church parish killed their fellow parishioners and even, in a number of cases, their own pastor or priest. Think of the modern wars you learned about in school. As Theologian David Bentley Hart puts it, -isms are variables, but killing is a human constant.[7]. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Is Religion the Cause of War? Peace is the highest religious aspiration for which we must work. The results of attempting to teach the theories to professional practitioners who will apply non-violence in a wide variety of contexts have been more successful dealing with individuals and small groups rather than in easing intractable international conflicts, such as the war in Bosnia or disputes between Israelis and the Palestinians.
Why Is My Boss Suddenly Micromanaging Me, Moneyval Mutual Evaluation Reports, Bobbie Baby Formula Recall, Speed Dating Over 50 San Antonio, Articles R